From Fox News: A Nevada family is using a rare legal argument in a lawsuit claiming police tried to commandeer their homes for a surveillance operation and then arrested the homeowners for resisting -- invoking the Third Amendment, which bars soldiers from being "quartered" in a residence without permission.
The Mitchell family, in a lawsuit filed July 1, detailed the incident from July 10, 2011. According to the complaint, it all began when the Henderson city police called Anthony Mitchell that morning to say they needed his house to gain “tactical advantage” in a domestic violence investigation in the neighborhood.
The situation turned ugly when Mitchell refused repeated requests to leave and police smashed through the door, the 18-page complaint states.
Mitchell alleges the police, upon entering his home, forced him to the floor at gunpoint, then shot him and his “cowering” dog with a few rounds of pepper-spray pellets. Police then allegedly handcuffed and arrested Mitchell in connection with “obstructing a police officer” before occupying his home.
It didn’t end at Anthony Mitchell’s house in suburban Las Vegas, the complaint continues. That same day, the officers also took over the home of Mitchell’s parents, Linda and Michael Mitchell, who live in the same neighborhood and are named as plaintiffs.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/?test=latestnews#ixzz2YX3KFMTd
As Paul Harvey said: Now, here's the rest of the story:
Apparently and not told in this story and the LVRJ story (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/henderson-family-sues-police-breaking-their-homes) it turns out that Mitchell's were sending text messages, pictures and phone calls to the thug inside the home SWAT had surrounded.
From the comment section: Good luck Mitchell family. When this goes to court as you say you want it, you can be exposed for the kind of people you really are. Sending pictures and calling the suspect to give away the police officer's locations put the baby inside at risk. If Mr. White had harmed the baby, officers would have been forced to make entry to save the baby's life. As for Anthony Mitchell laying defenseless on the floor of his living room floor, does he always do that while wearing body armor and having loaded weapons throughout his home. Seems odd, so maybe a trail is what is needed so the public can be informed on how the Henderson Police Department officers risk their lives that day all because they were called to Mr. White's residence. They did not just pick this residence at random. Please read the report become informed and then feel free to comment.
So, were the cops justified in bursting into this guy's house? I'd say yes, if only to protect the baby that was inside the thug's house, but it's a close call.
But there are two sides to every story.
At the Friday Night Café...
7 hours ago
While it's true there are two sides to every story, I'm not automattically soured on the Mitchell's version of events. Firstly, if HPD wanted to spy on their neighbor, wouldn't it make more sense to do so in a quiet manner - rather than bursting in the doors of TWO homes in the immediate area and fire rounds of Pepperballs at the occupants and their dog? If you've ever seen SWAT bursting through homes, they are seldom quiet, unobtrusive affairs. Seems to me the jig was up.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the neighbor - we haven't heard anything about the "domestic issues" or how the case (if there ever was one) was disposed of. Was there REALLY a domestic situation? What became of that family and the baby? Or was it a crank call ("swatting")?
Maybe the Mitchell's were/are friends with that family and were trying to find out what's going on. We just don't have all the facts.
Either way - HPD was out of line IMO.
Thanks Magicdog and all of your contributions.
ReplyDeleteYou're right and the house they invaded wasn't even next door.
The guy whose house SWAT was watching were arrested and charged but the charges were dropped- but I don't know why. I also don't why the guy just didn't come to the door.
BTW, thanks for your advice about Wal-Mart. Keeping one's fingers out of my mouth is a great idea- especially dealing with plastic bags.
I didn't do it one day and was sick with a cold for the next 5 days.
You're very welcome Dan! Glad I could help!
ReplyDelete@MagicDog: The domestic abuse target of the investigation, a man named White, had all charges against him dismissed. Swat teams for a domestic abuse call tells you everything you need to know about the story before even hearing the sad tale of the Mitchells.
ReplyDelete@Dan: Well, if someone in the anonymous comments section of some blog claimed the Mitchells were texting information to the suspect, it must be true. It is, after all, anonymous comments people tend to be highly ethical and follow the rules most journalists use in vetting their information. It could never be some schmuck who works for the Henderson PD, or anything like that.
A little common sense would tell you that the police, being outside of both the suspect's home and the Mitchells, would have no idea of any texting or video taping going on until entering one home or the other. Perhaps the used the battering ram on the Mitchell's door on the suspicion that they were texting and video taping the suspect. Yah, right.
Actually, it doesn't tell me why SWAT would be called out at all. Not all domestic situations require SWAT, though I understand domestic calls can be unpredictable and it should be a case by case evaluation. SWAT seems to get called out on an awful lot of calls these days. Not to mention police around the country seem to be more militarized these days.
ReplyDeleteThen the domestic case that was so urgent that SWAT was called in was dismissed... why? Was it not that serious to begin with? There's a piece missing from this puzzle.
Actually, thanks to Google, it IS possible to monitor texting and phone calls remotely. I would imagine that's the first thing police would do when a suspect is holed up to make sure they don't call in an ambush.
The guy getting swatted didn't just have his case dismissed, it was dismissed *with prejudice*.
ReplyDeleteThat means the judge told the prosecutor, "You have no case. There is no possible future evidence you could bring me that would change that fact, because the existing evidence in favor of the defendant is overwhelming. I'm ending this now."
The cops went in blind and started shooting. Should a cop be able to break down your door because they think your neighbor may commit a crime...even if those thoughts are just fantasy? What if the cop is fantasizing about child abuse? If the cop thinks a child is in danger, does that relieve them of accountability?